ELO is misunderstood

Rhapsody · Post by **Rhapsody** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:55 am

ELO is NOT for ranking rank player skills. It is a TOOL for creating even games.

"ELO skill" is a combination of 2 things:
1) players skill on contributing to team's victory.
2) players skill (and/or will) on joining winning team (loosely stacking skills /cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

" border="0" alt="cool.gif" /> ).

Even games = any particular player will win half of the games and lose half of the games he joins.

Consider a player with really high ELO skills and average ELO. If teams are even ELO-wise his team will actually have higher probability for winning, so eventually his ELO will raise. It will raise until he starts to lose half of his games and then his ELO will fluctuate around his real ELO skills.
Same is true for someone with really low ELO skills and average ELO. His team will have lower probability to win and thus he will lose ELO until also his ELO will fluctuate around his real ELO skills.

Elo will always be inaccurate for any particular game but because it is self correcting it will kind of force games to be _relatively_ even as long as teams are kept even ELO-wise.

I believe the part where "any particular player lose half of the games he joins" is the real cause of so much grief against the ELO. It's been said that it punishes good players - which imho is absurd, unless you consider being forced to play even games is a punishment.

The biggest real problem with current ELO is that it does not consider take commander skills. Once that is fixed - and even before, sign me up as ELO fanboi /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> )

juckto · Post by **juckto** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:58 am

QUOTE Posts: 5
Joined: 23-October 06[/quote]I'm confused.

Rhapsody · Post by **Rhapsody** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:02 am

juckto wrote:QUOTE (juckto @ Nov 5 2006, 02:58 AM) I'm confused.

Don't be, I have been around bit longer than that /ninja.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":ninja:" border="0" alt="ninja.gif" />

jgbaxter · Post by **jgbaxter** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:36 am

We cast you out, every unclean hider, every newbie power, every onslaught of the infernal cadet, every player, every diabolical callsign and squad, in the name and by the power of our Pookahantos. We command you, begone and fly far from the Forums of Allegiance and reveal thy innerself...

I could go on for hours, but suffice it to say; pony up the nick. /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Shizoku · Post by **Shizoku** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:05 am

Uh, RhapsodyInBlue (Duh!)

vlad13 · Post by **vlad13** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:24 am

This is all good if you can define what skill means in allegiance.

Example: bbr gets eyed by a random scout (newb elo=0) whole run gets podded counterbomb successfull game over.

Rhapsody · Post by **Rhapsody** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:32 am

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ Nov 5 2006, 04:05 AM) Uh, RhapsodyInBlue (Duh!)

Damn you Shiz, i was so sure no one would figure it out /doh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doh:" border="0" alt="doh.gif" />

tmc · Post by **tmc** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:19 am

indeed, ELO is a balance mechanism; not a stats system. Its goal is to create relatively even games; not to create a good leaderboard, or to give people an idea of how good they are.

That's why I think it should be private. Having the ELO up for public view only makes people consider it as a ranking system (and indeed, it becomes one, as it is the only thing we have to measure players, even though its somewhat flawed at that since thats not its purpose).

madpeople · Post by **madpeople** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:29 pm

QUOTE Rhapsody

Group: Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Blue[/quote]

i got it /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Post by **Raveen** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:45 pm

Rhapsody wrote:QUOTE (Rhapsody @ Nov 5 2006, 12:55 AM) It's been said that it punishes good players - which imho is absurd, unless you consider being forced to play even games is a punishment.

Yes, some people do see tis as a punishment. Apparently being forced to play with only half your pals rather than the whole lot is going to destroy Alleg or something /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" />

Rhapsody wrote:QUOTE (Rhapsody @ Nov 5 2006, 12:55 AM) The biggest real problem with current ELO is that it does not consider take commander skills. Once that is fixed - and even before, sign me up as ELO fanboi /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" /> )

Yup. Although how much effect on the team does the relative skill of the com have? I'd like to see some sort of commander balancing in force but I suspect it'll be really hard to implement. Something more player driven would be better if the community could manage to be relativly nice about it.

tmc wrote:QUOTE (tmc @ Nov 5 2006, 04:19 AM) indeed, ELO is a balance mechanism; not a stats system. Its goal is to create relatively even games; not to create a good leaderboard, or to give people an idea of how good they are.

That's why I think it should be private. Having the ELO up for public view only makes people consider it as a ranking system (and indeed, it becomes one, as it is the only thing we have to measure players, even though its somewhat flawed at that since thats not its purpose).

That'll be fine once the autobalance is introduced. Until then visible ranks allows for people to try to keep things even manually.